The Customer Defendants each move to dismiss XimpleWare's claims of direct infringement on the basis that XimpleWare has failed to plead facts showing distribution of the DCM software by any Customer Defendant.

涉案客戶被告均提出動(dòng)議，以XimpleWare未能提出事實(shí)證明任何涉案客戶被告分發(fā)了DCM軟件為由，請(qǐng)求駁回XimpleWare的直接侵權(quán)主張。

In dismissing XimpleWare's claims for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants in the FAC, the court held that regardless of the actions of the Versata Defendants, under the GPL the Customer Defendants each "retain the right to use XimpleWare's software so long as the customer does not itself breach the license by 'distributing' XimpleWare's software." Unchanged in the SAC is XimpleWare's allegation that the Customer Defendants "infringe and continue to willfully infringe the Patents by using the infringing Versata products." As use is expressly permitted under the GPL, the court's conclusion on this point is likewise unchanged: the SAC fails to state a claim for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants based on their use of XimpleWare's code included in the DCM software.

在駁回XimpleWare在FAC中對(duì)涉案客戶被告提出的直接侵權(quán)主張時(shí)，法院認(rèn)為，無(wú)論涉案Versata被告的行為如何，根據(jù)GPL，“只要客戶本身不因‘分發(fā)’XimpleWare的軟件而違反許可證”，則涉案客戶被告都“保留使用XimpleWare軟件的權(quán)利?！盭impleWare在SAC中仍然保留對(duì)涉案客戶被告“通過使用侵權(quán)的Versata產(chǎn)品侵犯并持續(xù)故意侵犯專利權(quán)”的指控。由于GPL明確允許使用行為，法院就這一點(diǎn)的結(jié)論仍然沒有改變：SAC因涉案客戶被告對(duì)包含在DCM軟件中的XimpleWare代碼使用行為而提出的直接侵權(quán)主張無(wú)法得到支持。

While use is unrestricted under the GPL, distribution is not. The GPL permits distribution only if the distributing party satisfies several specific conditions, including among other things including copy of the GPL along with the distributed program. The court previously held that XimpleWare had adequately alleged the Customer Defendants failed to satisfy the conditions for distribution of XimpleWare's software. Accordingly, the "only real issue to resolve" was "whether XimpleWare has sufficiently alleged that its software was 'distributed' by the customers when they shared the software with their independent contractors, franchisees, and producers." The court further held that XimpleWare had not, and dismissed its claims against the Customer Defendants. However, the court granted XimpleWare leave to amend to cure this defect.

雖然GPL不限制使用行為，但卻對(duì)分發(fā)行為作出了限制。只有在分發(fā)方滿足若干特定條件的情況下（包括隨分發(fā)程序附上GPL的副本）GPL才允許分發(fā)。法院先前認(rèn)為，XimpleWare已充分指控涉案客戶被告未能滿足分發(fā)XimpleWare軟件的條件。因此，“唯一真正需要解決的問題”是“XimpleWare是否充分指控了客戶在與其獨(dú)立承包商、特許經(jīng)營(yíng)商和制造商共享軟件時(shí)‘分發(fā)’了其軟件”。法院進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，XimpleWare沒有就此進(jìn)行充分指控，因此駁回了其對(duì)涉案客戶被告的訴訟請(qǐng)求。不過，法院準(zhǔn)許XimpleWare修正起訴狀以彌補(bǔ)這一缺陷。